T 

MEADE 

v 

IK 691 
.A56 
Copy 2 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM 


AS AN ISSUE IN THE 


NEXT PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. 


SECOND EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS. 



























































































ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM 


AS AN ISSUE IN THE 


NEXT PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. 


GENERAL C. C. ANDREWS, 

OF MINNESOTA . 



SECOND EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

printer) at t\)t ittoersfoe JBr m* 

1888. 

i 



53325 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


When the first edition of this pamphlet was 
issued, July, 1887, eleven hundred copies of it 
were mailed to as many representative journals 
and periodicals throughout the country; and 
judging from such reviews as I have seen, of 
which not a few were editorials giving a synop¬ 
sis of its contents or making liberal quotations 
from it, a fair knowledge of its facts and argu¬ 
ments must in this way have been brought to 
many thousand readers. I cordially acknowl¬ 
edge the attention given it by the press. Pos¬ 
sibly my testimony would have had more 
weight if I had stated that my means of ac¬ 
quaintance with the subject had been derived 
from sixteen years’ experience in the public 
service in course of the past thirty years; of 
which the first two years were as a clerk in 
one of the departments at Washington. 

There is one argument I could wish to em¬ 
phasize much more strongly than I have done. 



iv PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

It is the benefit the government would derive 
in holding out inducements to employees and 
officers to do their best; to make continuous, 
efforts for their improvement and efficiency. 
People are influenced mainly by self-interest. 
An officer will take pains to increase his ef¬ 
ficiency in proportion as he sees he can better 
his condition in life by doing so. Let the gov¬ 
ernment gradually raise the grade of qualifica¬ 
tion required of its servants and assure them 
that their retention and promotion will depend 
on their merit, and ifc will derive great direct 
benefit. It appears to me also that a great 
indirect benefit would accrue to the country at 
large by the increased intellectual interest and 
training that would be fostered by such an 
example. What a glorious statement was that 
of Prince Bismarck last February when, at his 
request, the Reichstag with one voice added 
seven hundred thousand men to the imperial 
army and voted a loan of seventy million dol¬ 
lars to arm and equip them ! — thus enabling 
Germany to place, in case of war, a million of 
good soldiers on each of her frontiers with re¬ 
serves behind them. Said Prince Bismarck: “It 
must not be said, 6 Others can do the same ! * 
That is just what they cannot do. We have 


V 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

the material not only for forming an enormous 
army, but for furnishing it with officers .” Yes! 
it is the intellectual training of the German 
people that enables that country at a moment’s 
notice to find enough educated men for com¬ 
missioned officers for such a mighty army. It 
is more in peaceful avocations, however, in the 
competition of trade, in industry, social order, 
temperance, and frugality, that our country 
would derive benefit from increased intellectual 
interest and training. Let appointments and 
promotions in our civil service depend on merit, 
and a mighty impulse would be given to study 
and to better morals. 

The idea that an educated and permanent 
civil service is not consistent with a republican 
form of government is unsound, as shown by 
the fact that an educated military and naval 
service with permanent tenure are found per¬ 
fectly consistent with our form of government. 
Republican government in its best sense means 
a pure government, — a government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people ; and 
it ought, therefore, all the more to be exempt 
from the bad influences of the “spoils” system. 
When Jefferson became President he found, as 
he states, all the important offices filled by 


vi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

Federalists, but he said he would make changes 
no further than to give both parties a fair rep¬ 
resentation. To a committee of New Haven 
merchants he wrote : “ It would have been to 
me a circumstance of great relief had I found 
a moderate participation of office in the hands 
of the majority. I would gladly have left to 
time and accident to raise them to their just 
share. But their total exclusion calls for 
prompt corrections. I shall correct the proced¬ 
ure ; but that done, return with joy to that 
state of things when the only questions con¬ 
cerning a candidate shall be, Is he honest ? Is 
he capable ? Is he faithful to the Constitu¬ 
tion ? ” During his eight years’ administra¬ 
tion Jefferson removed only thirty-nine officers 
whose appointments have to be confirmed by 
the Senate. The regular “spoils” system — 
the appointment of men to all the best offices 
as a reward for party service — was introduced 
by President Jackson in 1829, and has been 
continued ever since. 

The public takes no particular interest in the 
fate of office-holders who received their ap¬ 
pointments on political grounds, who have 
made no sacrifice to qualify themselves, and 
who have merely discharged their duties in an 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION . vii 

ordinary way. But where an officer has shown 
aptitude for his duties, has taken pains to 
thoroughly fit himself for them, and has made 
an excellent record, he ought to be retained in 
the service ; and the public ought to manifest 
a lively interest in his protection. Let every 
one bear in mind, however, that, with few ex¬ 
ceptions, the spirit of the civil service law has 
not hitherto been applied to the 4,000 officers 
who are appointed by the consent of the Sen¬ 
ate, nor to a considerable number of the de¬ 
pendents of some of these 4,000, nor to the 
56,000 postmasters who can be appointed and 
removed by the Postmaster General; all of 
these, according to usage, are still subject to 
the “ spoils ” practice. There is no law to pro¬ 
tect any of these officers from arbitrary removal, 
no matter how much aptitude they possess for 
their duties, nor how zealous and effective they 
have been in their discharge. If on the acces¬ 
sion of any new President enough pressure be 
made he can “ with bare-fac’d power sweep ” 
every such officer from his place. And there 
is always danger that an overwhelming pressure 
will be brought to bear on him. The 409 sena¬ 
tors, representatives, and delegates in Con¬ 
gress have pre-audience with the President. 


viii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

He cannot see and talk with everybody. But 
these hundreds of congressmen he must admit 
and hear; and if they, day after day, from 
month to month, incessantly argue, plead for, 
and demand indiscriminate change, then a 
break is liable finally to be made. Now, what 
the civil service requires, and what the best 
sentiment of the country wants, is that a barrier 
be interposed to protect the President from this 
pressure, and which at the same time will tend 
to establish the civil service on a non-partisan 
basis. For this purpose I would recommend 
the passage of a law by Congress substantially 
like the following: — 

That from and after the passage of this act ap¬ 
pointments of assistant treasurers, mint and assay 
officers, customs and revenue officers, consular of¬ 
ficers, district attorneys, marshals, postmasters, In¬ 
dian inspectors and agents, registers and receivers 
of land offices, surveyors general, and supervising 
inspectors of steamboats shall be made solely with 
reference to fitness, and not on account of adherence 
to any political party, yet so as to distribute appoint¬ 
ments with reasonable fairness among the several 
States ; and officers so selected and appointed after 
the passage of this act shall not be removed except 
for cause which in each case shall be duly reported 
to Congress. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ix 

The law could be framed to include other 
officers than those mentioned ; but I have not 
added others lest, for a beginning, it might be 
thought too sweeping. With regard to such a 
project the inquiry will at once arise, How can 
we expect Congress to enact a law of this sort 
when it is for the interest of possibly a ma¬ 
jority of congressmen to oppose it ? Offices 
now in too many cases are the congressman’s 
perquisites, with which he rewards the friends 
who have aided his election; and he will 
naturally oppose a measure which deprives 
him of a share of “ patronage ” and “ spoils.” 
The way to secure the passage of such a law is 
for intelligent and patriotic people to agitate 
for its enactment, and to bring their strong and 
persistent influence to bear on their respective 
senators and representatives for its support. 
At the same time the people should require 
their respective State legislatures to organize 
the civil service of their State on non-partisan 
principles as has already been done with ex¬ 
cellent results in the States of New York and 
Massachusetts. C. C. Andrews. 




ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


In an official report which I had the honor to 
make to the Department of State, eleven years 
ago, on the systems of Civil Service in Sweden 
and in Norway, and which was published by the 
government of the United States, I stated: “Dur¬ 
ing the last three quarters of a century a com¬ 
plete revolution has taken place in the civil ser¬ 
vice of the principal European states. Rigorous 
and impartial tests of qualification have been 
adopted, and where formerly were incompetency, 
routine, and peculation are now efficiency and 
fidelity. The prosperity of those states is owing 
in a great degree to the character of their civil 
service, for it has been made instrumental to the 
development of their resources and to public 
economy. Prussia, whose soil and physical re¬ 
sources are third-rate in quality, as compared 
with those of the United States, while in magni¬ 
tude they bear but slight comparison with ours, 
owes it very much to the high order of efficiency 
which has been introduced into her civil service 
that she has risen to be one of the first powers in 



2 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM . 


the world. Improvements in administration have 
hardly been less in France and Great Britain.” 
I also expressed my sincere belief “ that the 
United States have much to gain in prosperity 
at home and reputation abroad by a reform of 
their civil service.” Additional experience and 
observation have strongly confirmed this opinion; 
and it is with some hope that the able and pa¬ 
triotic leaders of public opinion in our country 
may be induced to bestow a share of attention on 
the subject previous to the absorbing hours of 
the approaching presidential canvass that I now 
venture upon its discussion. It is evident that 
Administrative Reform — which I regard as 
identical with Civil Service Reform — will oc¬ 
cupy a large share of attention in that canvass. 
A majority of the Independents are educated 
men, who are determined to use their influence 
for the prompt abolition of the spoils system; 
and although they are not satisfied with the 
progress of civil service reform under President 
Cleveland’s administration, they will nevertheless 
give him their support in 1888 unless the Repub¬ 
lican party shall furnish unmistakable evidence of 
a sincere and firm purpose to promptly accomplish 
very much more in that regard than has already 
been done, or seems likely, under the present ad¬ 
ministration, to be done. The Republican party 
must either show an honest purpose to abolish the 
spoils system, and the worse than kingly one-man 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 3 

power which it fosters, or be prepared for another 
defeat. As a Republican, therefore, I think 
that our leaders and the conductors of the Re¬ 
publican press will greatly lighten the labors of 
the impending canvass, greatly lessen the wear 
and tear and expense, the need of brass bands, 
torchlight processions, and large subscriptions of 
money, if they will seasonably commence an intel¬ 
ligent agitation of the question of civil service re¬ 
form, and educate our party up to a hearty and 
enlightened appreciation of the subject. If the 
Independents could see Republican municipal 
governments and Republican state governments 
introducing business principles into their offices 
they would be fairly assured that a Republican 
administration at Washington could be depended 
on to do the same. 

There is great misapprehension in the pub¬ 
lic mind as to what has already been accom¬ 
plished in the way of civil service reform. Many 
people think that because Congress has enacted 
a law for the improvement of the civil service 
nothing more remains to be done but to carry 
the law into execution. It is true a civil ser¬ 
vice law has been enacted. It is entitled, “ An 
Act to regulate and improve the civil service 
of the United States,” was approved by Presi¬ 
dent Arthur January 16, 1883, and is generally 
called the Pendleton Act, after a Democratic sen- 


4 A DM INIS TRA TIVE REFORM. 

ator who took a leading part in getting it passed. 
This law, however, applies only to clerks, and to 
inferior officers whose nominations do not need 
to be submitted to the Senate. It does not touch 
— and this fact demands particular attention — 
that large list of civil' officers, numbering about 
four thousand, whose appointments require the 
“ advice and consent of the Senate,” but these 
still remain subject to the “spoils” system. Yet 
although this so-called Pendleton Act reforms 
only a part of the civil service, it is an excellent 
measure as far as it goes, and ought to be well 
understood by every citizen. Its purpose is to 
take the appointment of inferior officers and 
clerks out of party politics, and to apply impar¬ 
tial tests of qualification for their admission to 
the service and their promotion therein. Of the 
three commissioners appointed to prepare rules 
for carrying the law into effect only two shall be 
adherents of the same party. The law provides 
for open competitive examinations for testing 
the fitness of applicants for the public service, 
which examinations shall be practical in their 
character, and, so far as may be, shall relate to 
those matters which will fairly test the relative 
capacity and fitness of the persons examined to 
discharge the duties of the service into which 
they seek to be appointed; and appointments in 
the departments at Washington shall be appor¬ 
tioned among the several States and Territories 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 5 

upon the basis of population. There is a period 
of probation before any absolute appointment. 
Under this law a university or even academical 
education is not required to fit a person for en¬ 
tering the service. The book learning is no more 
than a youth with aptitude for learning can ac¬ 
quire in the common schools or by the light of 
the country fireplace. The power of any head 
of department to summarily dismiss a clerk is not 
taken away, but the motive to dismiss on politi¬ 
cal grounds is taken away because the vacancy 
must be filled from among those who have been 
examined and shown themselves competent. Un¬ 
der this law the son of a washerwoman stands 
just as good a chance for entering the service as 
the son of a congressman. The law is not only 
a most praiseworthy reform in separating many 
thousands of clerkships from party politics and 
in applying impartial tests for entering the ser¬ 
vice, but it is calculated to give a fresh impulse 
to education . Thousands of youth all over our 
country find in it an inducement for study which 
before did not exist. No doubt the success of 
the law will depend a good deal, and possibly 
too much, on the good faith of the Executive. 
It is to be hoped, however, that every President 
we may have will faithfully carry it into effect; 
but if there should be any failure in the matter 
no doubt some representative of the people will 
have the courage to demand the proper scru- 


6 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


tiny. Indeed, Congress has shown that it intends 
to keep an eye on the matter by enacting that 
the commissioners “ shall make an annual report 
to the President for transmission to Congress, 
showing their own action, the rules and regula¬ 
tions and the exceptions thereto in force, the 
practical effects thereof, and any suggestions that 
they may approve for the more effectual accom¬ 
plishment of the purposes of the act.” 

With reference to political assessments, it is 
true this law provides that no person in the 
public service is for that reason under any obli¬ 
gation to contribute to any political fund or to 
render any political service, and that he will not 
be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing 
to do so; also, that it prohibits, under severe 
penalties, any person in the public service of the 
United States from soliciting for political pur¬ 
poses any money from any officer, clerk, or 
employee of the United States. But the law 
does not, in this regard, accomplish what it 
intends, and it ought to be amended so as to 
prohibit any person or committee of any sort 
from soliciting, directly or indirectly, political 
contributions from persons in the public service. 
At present, political committees are composed of 
unofficial persons, but who are known to have 
great political influence, and who can and do send 
circulars to civil officers, clerks, and employees, 
suggesting contributions. These officers, clerks, 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM . 7 

and employees thus addressed know very well 
that a record is kept of contributions, and that a 
failure to contribute will be known to those who 
are high and powerful in the party. They are 
thus still coerced, though indirectly, to contribute 
to a party fund. I see no harm in any purely vol¬ 
untary contribution, but the soliciting of political 
contributions, by any person or persons, from offi¬ 
cers, clerks, or employees ought to be prohibited. 
This Pendleton Act applies, or in the discretion 
of a civil service reform President can be made 
to apply, to the vast number of thirty-eight 
thousand inferior officers, clerks, and employees, 
whose annual salaries together amount to thirty- 
eight million dollars, and as the clause in regard 
to assessments applies to every one in the civil 
service, the amount which can still be assessed for 
party purposes is not far short of fifty millions 
dollars. Is it not high time an absolute stop 
should he put to the levying of party assessments, 
on this vast sum at every congressional or pres¬ 
idential election ? 

There are upward of three thousand civil 
officers of the United States who can be ap¬ 
pointed only by the President by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, and who do not 
come within the Pendleton Act. Their classifi¬ 
cation and number are about as follows: assist¬ 
ant secretaries and chiefs of bureaus in Wash- 


8 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


ington 30, assistant treasurers 9, collectors of 
internal revenue 85, customs officers 150, diplo¬ 
matic and consular officers 350, district attorneys 
and marshals 132, Indian inspectors and agents 
68, mint and assay officers 26, pension agents 
19, presidential postmasters 2,233, registers and 
reieivers of land offices 208, surveyors general 
16, supervising inspectors of steamboats 10, 
territorial officers 45 ; in all, 3,381 offices which 
usage has given the President power to distrib¬ 
ute to his party adherents. There are probably 
a few more such offices that might be added to 
the above list. 

In a few, but not many European countries, it 
is customary to regard the first assistant secre¬ 
taryships of a central department as confiden¬ 
tial posts, and subject to change with the minister 
or chief. There may be some reason for such a 
rule, but in respect of all the other offices, in¬ 
cluding diplomatic offices, it is no more custom¬ 
ary for European governments to make changes 
on a change of administration than it is in this 
country to change officers of the regular army. 

If in our country a party while in power has 
monopolized nearly all the civil offices, it must be 
expected that changes will be made on the acces¬ 
sion of a new party; and if the changes be 
made in a frank manner on their true ground, no 
one will complain. Civil service reform implies 
that no one political party shall have all the 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


9 


offices ; and when the time arrives that there is 
an equilibrium, and both parties are reasonably 
fairly represented in the civil service, then will be 
a suitable opportunity to adopt a rule of perma¬ 
nency of tenure. 

Of course, under every administration it is 
reasonable that some of the higher positions 
should be regarded as prizes with which to re¬ 
ward a few who have rendered preeminent ser¬ 
vice to their party and country. But party zeal 
or sympathy is no qualification for the proper 
discharge of a public office. Take, for example, 
the diplomatic office, in which with us changes 
are the soonest made of any. It is the duty of 
the diplomatic agent to gain that insight of the 
people and government where he is stationed, and 
to acquire that influence, that he could in an 
emergency render efficient service to his own 
country. The less he carries with him of party 
bias, the better. A long time ago diplomatic rep¬ 
resentatives were expected to watch the personal 
interests of their sovereign ; but surely the United 
States ought not to go back to that usage, long 
ago discarded by every pow r er of Europe, and 
consent that their diplomatic agents are to be 
the personal representatives of the President. 
The consular officer, five thousand miles away, 
who protects American seamen and certifies the 
invoices of foreign exporters — what has he to 
do with party politics at home ? and so as to a 


10 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

collector of customs at one of our great ports, 
— what the country wants of him is that he 
will collect the taxes on imports in an impartial 
and faithful manner. It desires the administra¬ 
tion to hold him to a rigid accountability. It 
wants none of his panegyrics on the administra¬ 
tion, none of his after-dinner platitudes. The 
less he has to do with party politics, the better 
pleased the country will be. “ Sympathy ” for 
the administration ! Is that a qualification for an 
Indian agent in the distribution of rations and 
blankets to the Indians? or for registers and 
receivers of land offices in deciding contests be¬ 
tween poor homestead settlers ? Is it a qualifica¬ 
tion for steamboat inspectors, pension agents, or 
officers of the mint ? Does it enable a commis¬ 
sioner of patents to determine the utility and 
novelty of an invention ? There has been just 
one period in my recollection, and only one, when 
special devotion to an administration might have 
been a qualification for a civil officer, and that 
was when United States marshals were called 
upon to catch fugitive slaves! 

At the present time, the “ regulations ” for 
almost every class of civil officers comprise a 
pretty thick printed volume which is the same 
under successive administrations. These regula¬ 
tions are changed only as the laws change, and 
it is the officer’s duty to obey them. What the 
government and people equally want of an offi- 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


11 


cer is not sympathy for the administration, but 
duty ; and any one appointed to an office who 
has not patriotism enough to discharge his duties 
faithfully without regard to party politics is not 
qualified for his place. 

There are hundreds of Democrats who have 
been holding commissions in the army and navy 
for many years back. Has any one heard of a 
single instance where they have failed of their 
duty because a Republican administration was in 
power ? Have any of the many Democrats who 
were continued in the civil service under Repub¬ 
lican administrations failed in their duty because 
their political sympathies were not in accord with 
the administration ? No ! the work of a civil 
officer and for which he receives his pay, like 
that of an army or navy officer, is for his govern¬ 
ment, and not for his party. 

Senator Edmunds stated the true relation of 
the civil officer to the government, in the 
debate March 17, 1869, on the tenure of office 
bill: “ Is he the mere servant and creature of 
the Executive, or is he the responsible agent of 
the law that imposes upon him certain duties and 
surrounds him with certain rights, so that tread¬ 
ing in the path of his duty he can compel the 
President of the United States to pay his taxes 
as well as he can compel me to pay mine ? This 
is the idea that I have been taught to entertain of 
the true functions of an officer of a free people.” 


12 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

The fact clearly to be kept in mind is that no 
law has yet been passed to take these three thou¬ 
sand and more appointments out of party pol¬ 
itics, and that they still remain by usage (though 
not by the Constitution) a part of the President’s 
patronage. The annual compensation of these 
offices amounts in the aggregate to about twelve 
million dollars ; which sum practically constitutes 
a relief fund that the President can and does 
distribute to his needy supporters. I submit to 
thoughtful Americans whether or not this is a 
practice wholesome for the Republic ? 

Public opinion has in late years changed for 
the better with regard to office-holders mixing 
in party politics, and is now strongly against the 
practice. Probably either political party would 
now indignantly refuse to be bound by the 
action of a convention that was controlled, or 
even considerably influenced, by office-holders. 
Still there are some influential men who favor the 
old usage, and there is nothing in the law as yet 
to prevent its again coming into use. The office¬ 
holder claims, and with some force, that he ob¬ 
tained his position as a reward for party service, 
and that if he lets go his “ grip ” in party 
affairs his office will be likely to slip from him 
also. The reply to this is that a reform of the 
civil service implies that appointments and remov¬ 
als will not be made for political reasons, but that 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 13 

the officer will find the motives for his retention 
and promotion in fidelity and capacity. 

It is for the interest of the government that 
every civil officer should enjoy the public confi¬ 
dence and good-will; but this he cannot do if 
he is an active partisan and wire-puller. The 
public has not forgotten how, in many places, 
people went some distance to patronize neighbor¬ 
ing post-offices, in consequence of their dislike 
of some of President Cleveland’s new postmas¬ 
ters. The intensity of political prejudice in 
many people is amazing, as is illustrated by an 
authentic example, — the case of a respectable, 
industrious, and well-to-do old Democratic farmer 
in a New England town, who blamed Lincoln’s 
administration because his grocer had got out of 
codfish and rum. Said he, “ I have been down 
to the Bridge (village), and they have got no cod¬ 
fish nor rum, and if Lincoln stays in much longer 
we ’ll all go to the d—1.” This old Democrat 
was as bright as the average of men, but very 
narrow in his political feelings. There is a vast 
number of just such bigoted people in both par¬ 
ties, and it is bad policy for our government to 
arouse their jealousy and ill-will by allowing its 
agents and officers to be active in caucuses, con¬ 
ventions, at the polls, and in party management 
generally. A late commissioner of internal reve¬ 
nue stated in his annual report that the govern¬ 
ment, in the course of the year, had been cheated 


14 ADMINISTRA T1VE REFORM. 

out of two million dollars of taxes. This loss was 
largely in consequence of the revenue officials and 
employees having been active and dependent poli¬ 
ticians. They favored their political friends to the 
government’s cost; while their political enemies, 
from prejudice and narrow views, withheld a part 
that was the government’s due. The French have 
always been very practical and successful in the 
collection of taxes. When Leon Say, who is 
regarded as one of the ablest of modern states¬ 
men, was the French minister of finance, he in¬ 
structed the tax collectors of France not to min¬ 
gle in the elections then pending, because it 
would deprive them of their proper influence 
over the tax-payers, and prevent the full collec¬ 
tion of the revenue. It would shock the popu¬ 
lar feeling if a judicial officer were to make party 
speeches and be active in party caucuses and con¬ 
ventions. Such a thing would not be tolerated. 
And why ? Because, by universal consent, a 
judge ought to have the esteem and confidence 
of people of all parties. And just on this prin¬ 
ciple civil officers in all branches of the service 
should abstain from taking an active part in 
politics. 

In opposition to all this a great flourish of 
trumpets is made about the “ rights of an Amer¬ 
ican citizen ! ” To take part in political affairs 
is, we are told, the right of every citizen. Yes; 
provided he is not in office. When a man takes 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 15 

an office he has to give up a great many rights. 
A commodore in the navy has to go where he is 
sent. No officer can quit his post without leave. 
Every man who takes an office will find that he 
necessarily has to give up many rights which he 
before enjoyed. It is the right of an American 
citizen to enter into contract with the govern¬ 
ment of the United States to carry the mails, to 
furnish timber or goods for the navy, to con¬ 
struct ships of war, to build post-offices and cus¬ 
tom houses, and to furnish supplies for the army. 
Considerable money is sometimes made out of 
such contracts ; but on grounds of public policy 
senators and representatives in Congress are pro¬ 
hibited by law from having any interest what¬ 
ever in any such contract. There is equal pro¬ 
priety in prohibiting office-holders from mixing 
actively in party politics any further than to vote 
and to express on suitable occasions their views 
on public questions. Finally, it is unworthy a 
free people that their political assemblies and 
proceedings should be, or even be supposed to 
be, under the dictation of the dependents of any 
administration or party. 

Then with regard to the economical benefits 
of reform. It is a simple and well-known prin¬ 
ciple in business that, where the risks are great, 
the profits must be large in proportion. Apply 
this principle to offices, the tenure of which is 


16 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

liable to cease at every change of administration, 
and is it not clear that the pay must be large in 
proportion to the uncertainty of the tenure? 
“ The government cakes are thin, but they are 
sure,” is a sound maxim in the Swedish civil ser¬ 
vice. The tenure there is permanent. The gov¬ 
ernment u cakes ” are sure, and therefore the 
officer can afford to take them thin. With us 
the aggregate salaries of the thousands of presi¬ 
dential offices, which by our most undemocratic 
and unrepublican usage have come to be regarded 
as executive “ patronage,” cannot fall far short 
of $12,000,000; and if the principle of certainty 
were imparted to the service a saving might be 
made of some millions per annum. Again, 
under our present system of rotation, the govern¬ 
ment suffers the disadvantage of always being 
served by mere apprentices. It requires several 
years to thoroughly learn a mechanical trade or 
any separate branch of mercantile business. So, 
it requires several years for a man to learn the 
duties of almost any civil office; yet about as 
soon as he becomes really efficient and valuable 
to the government he is removed and a new ap¬ 
prentice put in his place. Surely no line of mer¬ 
cantile business could be successfully conducted 
by such a practice. If the government would by 
degrees raise the grade of qualifications for its 
officers and insure a tenure that would make it an 
object for competent persons to enter the service. 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 17 

it would make a direct saving of millions of dol¬ 
lars a year. There would be, besides, many indi¬ 
rect benefits resulting to the public from such a 
change. Take our Indian service, for example. 
An Indian agent — that is, an agent for the 
Indians — holds his office for a term of only four 
years ; yet such an officer is practically the ruler 
of several thousand Indians. To be as valuable 
both to the government and to the Indians as 
he ought to be, he should have that thorough 
knowledge of the character, language, and needs 
of the Indians which can only be gained by 
many years’ experience with them. His influence 
over them ought to be very great; and from 
such an agent we can readily suppose an in-com¬ 
ing administration might derive information and 
advice with reference to the management of 
the Indians which would be valuable. But how 
ludicrous to suppose that it could place much 
dependence upon information and advice received 
from its own newly appointed agents, who were 
mere apprentices and had to be taught their du¬ 
ties by instructions from the Indian Bureau at 
Washington ! It is owing much to the frequent 
changes and superficial qualifications in the In¬ 
dian service that we have had such a faltering, 
hand-to-mouth Indian policy. If our civil service 
had been such as to attract and retain first-rate 
men for Indian agents, the country would have 
been spared many humiliations (surely the killing 


18 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


of an agent and barbarous treatment of his wife 
and daughters by the Indians, as happened in 
Colorado, was a humiliation) and thousands of 
innocent lives and many millions of dollars might 
have been saved. 

There are about 250,000 Indians in the United 
States. The Indian service proper costs from 
$5,000,000 to $7,000,000 a year ; and certainly 
$6,000,000 a year out of the $40,000,000 ex¬ 
pended annually for the support of our military 
establishment may be charged to Indian trou¬ 
bles. One of the ablest generals of the army 
in a recent report favors an increase of the army 
to 50,000 men, and says there is daily use for 
nine tenths of such a force with sole reference to 
the Indians. General Schofield in his report, re¬ 
ferring to the country west of the Rocky Moun¬ 
tains, says, “ The Indian reservations are now 
surrounded by great herds of horses and cattle, 
by vast fields of wheat and corn, and by thou¬ 
sands of defenceless settlers;” that these settlers, 
“ relying on the government for protection, are 
apparently unconscious of any danger, while in 
simple truth they are liable at any moment to 
experience all the horrors of savage warfare.” 
And yet we continue to appoint, nobody knows 
who, for an Indian agent, to hold his office four 
years as a reward for party service. Economy, 
humanity, and honor alike powerfully demand a 
reform of this branch of the service. 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


19 


Take, also, our public land system. For fifty 
years, under each political party, the government 
has been selling much of its pine timber land — 
the virgin forest — at one dollar and a quarter 
per acre, which was actually worth seventy-five 
dollars per acre ! The inexperience of our fre¬ 
quently changed land officers has not only re¬ 
sulted in the government being a great loser 
with reference to its timber interests, but it has 
often been a source of confusion and expense to 
settlers on the public land. Too much politics ! 
That is the reason why our land laws have not 
been more economically administered. 

The greater part of the revenue which the gov¬ 
ernment (and when I use this word I mean of 
course the national government of the United 
States, and not the government of any separate 
State) collects to defray its vast expenses and to 
pay the interest on the public debt is derived 
from taxes — called also the tariff or customs 
duties — levied on goods imported from foreign 
countries. To determine promptly the proper 
rate of tax on the numberless kinds of goods 
under our complicated tariff requires not only a 
great deal of technical skill and a judicial mind, 
but many years’ experience. How absurd it is 
that the revenue officers of our great ports should, 
from their lack of experience, feel obliged to 
send to the Treasury Department, Washington, 
almost every twenty-four hours for instructions 


20 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


in the discharge of their duties! So, one might 
go through every branch of our civil service and 
show how unthrifty it is for the government to 
be always served by a set of beginners or appren¬ 
tices. With trained and skilled officers the gov¬ 
ernment could accomplish its work with a smaller 
force and obtain better service. The late Gen¬ 
eral Garfield, in a carefully prepared paper that 
was published in 1877, expressed his belief that 
with a “ judicious system of civil service the busi¬ 
ness of the departments could be better done, 
with almost one half the present cost.” Mr. 
Conkling, in a speech in the Senate February 20, 
1869, in favor of the Tenure of Office Act said: 
“ I heard, the other day, a senator affirm — and he 
is one whose duties here turn his studies toward 
such knowledge — that one hundred million dol¬ 
lars would not reimburse the loss to the treasury 
-arising from the wanton exercise of the appoint¬ 
ing power by the present (Andrew Johnson’s) 
administration.” Allowing for some possible 
exaggeration in these and other estimates which 
might be cited, it may safely be assumed that the 
United States would directly save many million 
dollars a year if an end were put to the spoils 
system as still practiced in respect to the three 
or four thousand presidential offices. At the 
present time the government of this great coun¬ 
try feels itself to be in such need of money as 
to collect a tax of one dollar a barrel on the 



A DM INIS TRA T1VE REFORM. 21 

pickled fish that forms a part of the food of our 
humblest industrial classes, a tax of eighteen 
dollars per ton on iron, a tax of forty cents 
per pound and thirty-five per cent, of the value 
additional on woolen clothing, and a tax of 
twenty-five per cent, on books; and many other 
taxes of a similar character. If we could only 
have our civil service established on business 
principles, as it was in the time of George Wash¬ 
ington, the saving would be such that we could 
greatly reduce, if not wholly do away with such 
taxes. 

Nor is it, I think, a far-fetched idea that the 
example of fair dealing in the public service 
would increase respect for government and exert 
a valuable moral influence in promoting order. 

A great many people, however, while admit¬ 
ting the evils of the spoils system, are afraid that 
permanent tenure will breed an offensive aristoc¬ 
racy of office-holders , whose delight will be in 
circumlocution and red tape ; and that the pub¬ 
lic would consequently be subjected to “ the in¬ 
solence of office ” of which Hamlet speaks. I 
believe that a satisfactory answer to this is found 
in the fact that, under a truly reformed system, 
the office-holder’s hope of promotion is a suffi¬ 
ciently strong incentive to good behavior. The 
opinion of Mr.Von Steyern (since promoted to be 
a minister of the Crown), quoted in my “ Report 


22 ADM1NISTRA Tl VE REFORM. 

on the Civil Service o£ Sweden,” is that the secu¬ 
rity and independence of an officer in not being 
removable except after judicial judgment has 
not shown itself to have any injurious influence. 
He states that the hope of promotion to higher 
and better paid positions is always a powerful 
motive to well doing. This opinion is perfectly 
sound; and is borne out by what we observe in 
our own military and naval service, and by a vast 
amount of experience in business affairs. Ten¬ 
ure in our military and naval service is practically 
permanent and its officers command respect as 
they ought, but they do not compose an aristoc¬ 
racy. It is not customary for the military and 
naval officers of the United States to treat people 
who have business with them in an insolent man¬ 
ner. The hope of promotion among these of¬ 
ficers, if there were no other motive, would itself 
be sufficiently strong to make them act like gen¬ 
tlemen. No; where men are appointed and pro¬ 
moted through merit there is but little danger of 
their treating the public with insolence. On the 
other hand, the office-holder who is the creature 
of favoritism is just the one most likely to 
truckle to his superiors and to insult his inferiors. 

As all United States civil offices, except judge- 
ships, are practically held at the pleasure — one 
may say the mercy—of the President, a reform 
is needful not only for the good of the service 


A DM IN IS TRA TIVE REFORM. 


23 


itself, but as a check to a dangerously growing 
one-man power. 

The Constitution provides that judges shall 
hold their places during good behavior, but is 
silent as to the tenure of other officers except 
that they may be removed by impeachment; and 
this designation of a certain manner of removal 
led some people to contend that any other way of 
removal was impliedly excluded. The general 
opinion, however, of statesmen in the time of 
Washington appears to have been that the Pres¬ 
ident, like other chiefs of state, had full power of 
removal, but that his power in this as in other 
regards would be used solely for the public good; 
and, further, that the Senate could be relied upon 
to check his abuse of the power. That illustrious 
forerunner and expounder of the constitution, 
Alexander Hamilton, in discussing this power 
(“ Federalist,” No. 77, April 4, 1788), says: “ A 
change of the chief magistrate, therefore, would 
not occasion so violent or so general a revolution 
in the officers of the government as might be 
expected if he were the sole disposer of offices. 
Where a man in any station had given satisfac¬ 
tory evidence of his fitness for it, a new Presi¬ 
dent would be restrained from attempting a 
change in favor of a person more agreeable to 
him by the apprehension that the discountenance 
of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and 
bring some degree of discredit upon himself.” 


24 ADMIN1STRA TIVE REFORM. 

An instructive debate took place on the Presi¬ 
dent’s power of removal in the House of Represen¬ 
tatives of the first Congress in the year 1789, be¬ 
ing the first year of Washington’s administration. 
It arose on the hill for creating the “ Depart¬ 
ment of Foreign Affairs,” and particularly that 
clause of it providing that the head of the depart¬ 
ment should “ he removable by the President.” 
The debate is reported in Yolume I. of “ Annals 
of Congress,” and shows a remarkable degree of 
confidence on the part of the statesmen of that 
time, including Madison, that no President would 
ever remove meritorious officers, also their opin¬ 
ion that such a removal would be an impeachable 
offence. Mr. Madison, who argued in favor of 
the President’s power to remove, — the prevailing 
side, — said : “ The danger, then, consists merely 
in this: the President can displace from office a 
man whose merits require that he should be con¬ 
tinued in it. What will be the motives which 
the President can feel for such abuse of power 
and the restraints that operate to prevent it ? In 
the first place, he will be impeachable by this 
House before the Senate for such an act of mal¬ 
administration ; for I contend that the wanton 
removal of meritorious officers would subject 
him to impeachment and removal from his own 
high trust.” Madison, who expressed this opin¬ 
ion, had been one of the little group of states¬ 
men, including the matchless names of Washing- 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 25 

ton and Franklin, who framed the Constitution; 
it was he who with his own hand made the only 
report of the debates of the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention which has been preserved; and as the 
third successor of Washington, he held the office 
of President eight years. He was one of the fore¬ 
most of our early constitutional statesmen, and 
this opinion of his is quoted with approval by 
the great American jurist Story in his “ Commen¬ 
taries on the Constitution ” (vol. ii. § 1541, fourth 
edition). As good a constitutional lawyer as 
Reverdy Johnson also approved this opinion of 
Madison in the debate in the Senate on the ten¬ 
ure of office bill. 

Yielding to such arguments as were presented 
by Madison, and influenced partly by their confi¬ 
dence in the exalted character of the man who 
then filled the presidential office, the first Con¬ 
gress construed the Constitution as giving the 
President separate and absolute power of removal. 
As Thomas H. Benton says, it yielded to him 
“the kingly prerogative of dismissing officers 
without the formality of trial.” Very able men, 
however, and among others Daniel Webster, have 
expressed the opinion that “ the decision of 
1789, which implied a power of removal separate 
from the appointing power, was erroneous.” But 
though the President’s power of removal was 
acknowledged, the practice of the early Presi¬ 
dents was in harmony with the principles ex- 


26 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


pressed by Madison. Offices were regarded as 
public trusts, not as party perquisites. During 
the whole eight years of Washington’s adminis¬ 
tration he made only nine removals from offices, 
the nominations to which had to be submitted 
to the Senate. President Adams made only nine 
such removals. Though Jefferson was elected 
by a different party from the one which had 
been in power, yet he removed during his eight 
years’ administration only thirty-nine officers. 
During the sixteen years of the two administra¬ 
tions of Madison and Monroe only fourteen re¬ 
movals were made. President John Quincy 
Adams made only two removals. Then Jack¬ 
son’s administration in 1829 began the practice 
of making removals on party grounds. 

An important decision in support of the power 
of removal without cause was made by the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States in 1839. It 
was the case Ex parte Duncan N. Hennen (13 
Peters, 259), who was admitted to be a competent 
and faithful clerk of the United States District 
Court, but was removed by the judge to make 
place for another person whom the judge ap¬ 
pointed on grounds of personal friendship. The 
court after very elaborate argument decided that 
the removal was constitutional. It held that the 
power of removal is incident to the power of ap¬ 
pointment. 

More recently, the Supreme Court has decided 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 27 

that changes may be made in any military or 
naval offices by the President and Senate acting 
together. The Act of Congress of July 13, 
1866, section 5, and now in the Revise^' Statutes 
of the United States § 1229, provides c( that no 
officer in the military or naval service shall in 
time of peace be dismissed from the service except 
upon and in pursuance of a sentence of a court- 
martial to that effect,” and it has been the pop¬ 
ular opinion that this law absolutely secures to 
officers in the army and navy tenure during good 
behavior. A different construction, however, 
was given it by the Supreme Court in 1880, in 
the case of Blake v. United States, 13 Otto, 227. 
The court decided that the appointment with 
the advice and consent of the Senate of an offi¬ 
cer in the army in place of another (who had 
not been tried and sentenced by a court martial) 
was legal. The court said : “ There was no pur¬ 
pose by the 5th section of the Act of July 13, 
1866, to withdraw from the President the power, 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, to 
supersede an officer in the military or naval ser¬ 
vice by the appointment of some one in his 
place.” This decision was reaffirmed by the 
same court as lately as the October term, 1883, in 
the case of Keyes v. United States (109 U. S. 
Reports, 336). Although it would seem that 
the President alone has not the power to dismiss 
a military or naval officer who has not been sen- 


23 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


tenced by a court martial, it is nevertheless clear 
from these decisions that he and the Senate to¬ 
gether can at their pleasure supersede any and 
every officer of the army and navy. And does 
it require a very lively imagination to picture a 
situation where the President and a majority of 
the Senate are of the same party, when military 
and naval offices, like civil offices at present, 
shall become part and parcel of the spoils sys¬ 
tem ? A beginning would probably be made 
with assistant - paymasters, quartermasters, and 
commissaries, and by degrees we might expect 
to see rotation in the posts of captain, colonel, 
and general, and the same with officers of the 
navy. 

An abuse like our spoils system does not re¬ 
main stationary. Either it will be reformed, or 
it will increase by its own momentum, till we 
shall see, at first cautiously and under specious 
pretenses, and finally as a matter of course, all 
the best offices in the army and navy appropri¬ 
ated at every change of administration on the 
theory “To the victors belong the spoils.” And 
why not? It would be as reasonable and just 
to make changes in military and naval offices on 
party grounds as it is in the civil service. If 
such changes are good for the civil service they 
ought to be good for other branches of the ser¬ 
vice. This is the way the advocates of rotation 
would argue ; and although such a development 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 29 

of the spoils system would be deprecated by all 
friends of good administration, we must not be 
too confident it will not occur. 

A short, practical remedy might here be sug¬ 
gested against the enormous growth of this 
one-man power. It is a bit of republicanism 
which we might borrow from imperial Germany. 
The Emperor of Germany, like all sovereigns, 
can remove any civil officer without cause, but 
any officer so removed receives half pay during 
life. Of course such removals are very rare. 
(Appointments and promotions in the civil ser¬ 
vice of the German Empire are made on impar¬ 
tial and rigorous tests, and usually officers are 
removed only for cause and after a fair trial and 
sentence.) If Congress would enact that every 
officer in the public service who should be re¬ 
moved by the President without cause should re¬ 
ceive half pay, it would immediately stop such 
removals. No President would dare to saddle 
upon the government the expense of a big list of 
unemployed officers drawing half pay. 

Considering that the Democratic party had 
been out of power for a long period, and that a 
large majority of the civil offices were held by 
Republicans, it was not unreasonable, perhaps, to 
expect that President Cleveland, notwithstand¬ 
ing his promise to crush out the spoils system, 
would make changes till there should be about 


30 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


an equilibrium of the adherents of each party 
in office . If he had frankly pursued this course 
probably no one would have complained. But 
the complaint, and a very valid complaint, which 
a vast majority of the removed officials have 
against him is that, while his removals were, for 
the most part, actually on party grounds, he 
systematically caused it to be understood by the 
public that they were otherwise — that they were 
solely to purify the service. If he could find 
officials who had disgraced themselves or proved 
unfaithful or incompetent, it was due to the cause 
of civil service and to the public to remove them 
on the true and specific grounds; but to indis¬ 
criminately lump with them hundreds of merito¬ 
rious officers and cause it to be understood, as 
he did, that their removal was for reasons other 
than political was an injustice to honorable offi¬ 
cers, as well as an imposition upon the public. 

Mr. Cleveland was nominated and elected to 
the office of President because his character as a 
civil service reformer, acquired in the office of 
Governor of New York, gained him the support 
of the Independent civil service reform Re¬ 
publicans of that State. His declarations and 
pledges in favor of impartial and unpartisan 
civil service had been of the strongest character. 
The following are samples : In a message to 
the legislature of New York he said: “ The 
application to the public service of the same rule 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM . 31 

which prevails in ordinary business, of employing 
those whose knowledge and training fit them for 
the duties at hand without regard to other con¬ 
siderations, must elevate and improve the civil 
service and eradicate from it many evils from 
which it has long suffered.” At the “ business 
men’s ” meeting at the Academy of Music, New 
York, the evening of October 15, 1884, he de¬ 
clared : “ A government is never better admin¬ 
istered than when it is conducted on business 
principles.” So well known were his pledges on 
this subject that the London “ Times ” just before 
his inauguration said, “Mr. Cleveland received 
the support of the Independents on the faith of 
his condemnation of the spoils system, and they 
are looking to him for a vigorous removal of 
abuses in this direction.” He strongly reiterated 
his professions in his inaugural as President, 
March 4, saying, “ The people demand a reform 
of the administration of government and the 
application of business principles to public 
affairs. As a means to this end, civil service 
reform should be in good faith enforced.” There 
was additional reason for Mr. Cleveland making 
an uncommonly good record as a civil service re¬ 
former from the fact that the administration of 
his predecessor had accomplished not so very little 
in that line. To use the words of Mr. Dorman 
B. Eaton of December 30, 1884, under the new 
civil service law a Republican administration. 


32 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


with a magnanimity unprecedented in our history, 
had given official places to from eight hundred 
to one thousand of its political opponents. 
Though changes in office soon began to be 
made, the impression was continually given out 
at Washington that they were not on party 
grounds. On the 8th of May, up to which time 
the new administration had appointed 1,643 Dem¬ 
ocrats in the place of as many Republicans, being 
at the rate of over twenty-seven a day, includ¬ 
ing Sundays, since the 4th of March, the New 
York “ Herald’s” Washington correspondent 
wrote, u The work of sifting out unfaithful, in¬ 
competent, and improper men, and replacing them 
with better, will of course grow easier as the 
heads of departments and bureaus have time to 
more thoroughly master the details of their 
work. Thus it is very probable that the num¬ 
ber of changes will be greater in the next two 
months than in the last two. But the Presi¬ 
dent’s determination is to improve the civil ser¬ 
vice, not to make party plunder of the offices.” 
So the New York “ Herald ” of May 9, in an ed¬ 
itorial, said : “ The new administration is attend¬ 
ing to the public business. It is rooting out in¬ 
competent and unfaithful office-holders as fast 
as it discovers them : it is calling in new men to 
help establish new and better methods of doing 
the public business. It is going no slower than it 
ought to, for the work before it is difficult and 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM . 


33 


requires care.” These passages are but samples 
of the utterances which the newspaper press, both 
Independent and Democratic, were continually 
making. While announcements were being daily 
made of new appointments at home and abroad, 
the impression was studiously conveyed to the 
public that the officers removed had in some 
way failed in their duty. That nothing should 
be wanting to strengthen this fraudulent im¬ 
pression short lists were from time to time given 
out at Washington of Republican office-holders 
who, on account of having made good records, 
were to be retained in the service. Not only 
was the public assured of the pure and disinter¬ 
ested efforts of the administration, but the Presi¬ 
dent seemed to demand the sympathy of the peo¬ 
ple in the hard struggle in which he was engaged. 
In the burst of virtuous indignation contained in 
his published letter of August 1, 1885, he again 
asserts that his administration is “ pledged to 
give the people better government and better offi¬ 
cers” and is “ engaged in a hand-to-hand light 
with the bad elements of both parties.” Not only 
was he engaged in a “ fight ” with one party, but 
he was engaged in a desperate “ hand-to-hand 
fight with the bad elements of both parties .” 

And it is in just this capacity of a reform 
athlete that the independent press has loved 
to portray him in their cartoons and frequent 
panegyrics. 


34 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

If Mr. Cleveland had been a Cincinnatus taken 
from the plow, probably the most exact method 
of doing business would not have been expected 
of him; but as he had been a trained lawyer, 
accustomed to the precision and publicity of 
judicial proceedings, it would be supposed that 
acting as a chief magistrate in such responsible 
duties as the removal of officers from places of 
trust, and with every means for accuracy such as 
an abundance of clerks, stenographic reporters, 
and the telegraph freely at his disposal, — all 
furnished by the people’s money, — he would not 
only have proceeded impartially, but would have 
preserved a record in each case. No officer in 
the army and navy, however low in rank, is 
removed without a trial before a general court- 
martial consisting of several disinterested officers, 
and a careful review of the proceedings, record, 
and sentence by a judge advocate general, and 
the President. It will seem astounding, then, to 
learn from the President’s own admission that in 
such grave proceedings, involving the reputation 
and honor of important civil officers, he in not 
a few cases kept no record at all, and even 
formed his decisions to remove on mere secret, 
verbal, and ex parte statements ! In his message 
to the Senate of March 1, 1886, arguing his 
right to withhold from the Senate papers relating 
to the removal of officers, he said : “ I am quite 
prepared to avow that the cases are not few in 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 35 

which suspensions from office have depended 
more upon oral representations made to me by 
citizens of known good repute, and by members 
of the House of Representatives and senators 
of the United States, than upon any letters and 
documents presented for my examination.” It 
appears, indeed, from the minority Senate judi¬ 
ciary report made by the Democratic senators 
Messrs. Pugh, Coke, Vest, and Jackson, that such 
was his practice in a “ majority ” of cases. They 
say: “ In a large majority of the cases of sus¬ 
pension, as the minority are informed, the Pres¬ 
ident had information communicated to him 
orally by persons considered reliable, which it 
would be impossible for him to remember or 
reproduce in every case so as to put the Senate 
in possession of all the facts which governed him 
in the suspension, if the Senate had the author¬ 
ity, under the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, to call him to an account.” It was this 
secret Star Chamber system of administration 
which has made it convenient for the President 
to maintain, as he did in his message above 
quoted, that “ not a suspension has been made 
except it appeared to my [his] satisfaction that 
the public welfare would be improved thereby.” 
This declaration, taken in connection with his 
strong pledges to do away with the u spoils ” sys¬ 
tem and to make appointments on business princi¬ 
ples, his allowing lists to be published of officers 


36 


A DMINIS TRA T1VE REFORM. 


who were to be retained because of their good 
records, bis giving out from day to day through 
newspaper correspondence that he was engaged 
in weeding out incompetent officers, and his 
explicit reference in his letter of August 1, 
1885, to his pledge to give the people “ better 
officers ” can only support the inference that the 
officers he suspended had in some way failed to 
make a good record, — were guilty of something 
besides being Republicans. It is this aspersion 
upon their character against which the suspended 
and removed officers justly complain. 

“Not a suspension,” says the President, “ has 
been made except it appeared to my satisfaction 
that the public welfare would be improved there¬ 
by.” The construction which I have given to 
these words is the same that people in general 
would put upon them; and it is the same con¬ 
struction as given them by the Senate judiciary 
committee. That committee, in its very signifi¬ 
cant report made to the Senate by Mr. Edmunds 
February 18, 1886, and signed by Senators 
George F. Edmunds, John J. Ingalls, S. R. J. 
McMillan, George F. Hoar, James F. Wilson, 
and William M. Evarts, referring to the Presi¬ 
dent’s message above quoted state : “ This highly 
important and valuable official communication, 
in the presence of six hundred and forty-three 
suspensions from office, would seem to lead to the 
conclusion that this number of the civil officers of 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


37 


the United States selected to be suspended and 
removed had been so derelict in the performance 
of their functions, or guilty of such personal 
misconduct, as to put them in the category of 
unfaithful public servants, deserving dismissal 
by the President and the Senate and the con¬ 
demnation of their countrymen.” Further than 
this the committee say: u In such a state of 
things we think that the common sense of justice 
and fair play that is so much prized, as we believe, 
by the people of the United States, would require 
that in some way this large body of men should 
have an opportunity to know the substance of 
their alleged misdoings in order that they may 
either admit their guilt, or, denying it, explain 
their conduct, or show that the accusations 
against them were selfish and wicked pretexts, 
and set up for the mere purpose of obtaining 
their suspension and ultimate dismissal from 
office in order that others less capable and worthy 
might at once receive the honors and emoluments 
of their places. ... Why should the facts as 
they may appear from the papers on file be sup¬ 
pressed? Is it because that, being brought to 
light, it would appear that malice and misrepre¬ 
sentation and perjury are somewhat abundant, or 
merely that faithful and competent and honor¬ 
able officers have been suspended and are pro¬ 
posed to be removed, under the advice and con¬ 
sent of the Senate, in order that places may be 


38 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

found for party men because they are party men, 
or are the special objects of party favor ? How 
does it happen in this time of suggested reform 
and purer methods in government that, for the 
first time, it is thought important that the his¬ 
toric and administrative facts relating to the 
official and personal conduct of officers of the 
United States should be withheld, and that the 
administration of the government should pro¬ 
ceed with a secrecy as great as in the days of 
the Star Chamber ? ” 

The Constitution of the United States makes 
it the duty of the President to recommend to the 
consideration of Congress such “ measures ” as 
he shall judge necessary and expedient. It is 
somewhat remarkable that the present Executive 
has never recommended to Congress any 66 meas¬ 
ure ” for the reform of the civil service and the 
abolition of the spoils system. Mere general 
remarks do not constitute a project or “ meas¬ 
ure” in the meaning of the Constitution. The 
President, with the wisest counsel of practical and 
patriotic men always at his service, could prepare 
and submit to Congress a thorough-going proj¬ 
ect or measure of reform if he were so disposed, 
and doubtless could secure its passage. Why has 
he not done so ? 

With the exception of the Senate proceedings 
connected with the report just quoted, no notice 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 89 

seems to have been taken by Congress of the 
violation of the principles of civil service reform 
by the administration. It is a pity that the 
people do not assert their power on the question 
more effectively through their representatives. 
Even one representative in Congress who was an 
ardent civil service reformer could do an im¬ 
mense deal of good by frequently drawing atten¬ 
tion to the abuses or rather outrages practiced 
by the Executive in this matter. If these abuses 
were liable to be exposed and boldly criticised 
by some courageous member of the House of 
Representatives, the Executive would not be so 
likely to commit them. That the sense of 
justice of Congress is shockingly dull to the 
rights of an office-holder can be seen by contrast¬ 
ing the habitual indifference and silence of our 
House of Representatives with the jealous regard 
shown in such matters by the British House of 
Commons. Take the following case as an ex¬ 
ample. 

A vacancy, caused by death, had occurred in 
the office of the controller of the stationary de¬ 
partment, and the government filled it by pro¬ 
moting over many others a man who had been 
in the war office seventeen years, who had 
proved himself efficient, and who enjoyed a good 
character. It was objected to him, however, that 
he had had no experience in the stationary de¬ 
partment, and that the appointment indicated 


40 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

favoritism, for a select committee of the House 
had three years before recommended that the 
office, in the future, should be given to some one 
practically conversant with paper and printing. 
The House of Commons on the 16th of July 
1877, notwithstanding the government had a 
majority, passed a vote of censure against the 
government, the resolution declaring among 
other things that the appointment was calculated 
“ to discourage the interest and zeal of officials 
employed in the public departments of the 
state.” Here was a majority in the House of 
Commons of England passing a vote of censure 
against its own administration, not for unjustly 
removing a faithful officer, for no removal 
had been made; not for appointing an incom¬ 
petent man, for the person appointed was effi¬ 
cient ; but for promoting an officer under 
circumstances which indicated favoritism. Not 
only this, but the matter was regarded as of such 
importance that three days afterwards the Prime 
Minister, Earl of Beaconsfield, felt called upon 
to defend himself, as he did in the House of 
Lords, in an elaborate speech, the report of 
which filled over two columns of small type in 
the London “ Times.” He showed that there 
really was no favoritism in the appointment, and 
on the whole made a fair defence. 

In contrast with this jealous spirit of the 
British House of Commons, how strange is the 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 41 

indifference of the American House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, which without a word of remonstrance 
calmly beholds faithful officers removed in a 
surreptitious manner by hundreds, and others 
put in their place solely as the reward of party 
work. 

Out of all the three hundred and thirty-four 
congressional districts in our great Republic is 
there not one that can return a genuine civil 
service reformer? If a military officer (for ex¬ 
ample Fitz-John Porter) is removed, even after 
trial, the whole country becomes interested in 
his case. But civil officers may be removed by 
the hundred, even in a grossly unfair manner, 
with scarce any further notice of the matter be¬ 
ing taken by the public than the remark, “ Such 
is politics! ” 

In conclusion, I repeat there exists great delu¬ 
sion as to what has actually been accomplished 
in the way of reforming the civil service ; that 
over three thousand civil offices, with aggregate 
pay of twelve million dollars, still form a part 
of the President’s patronage ; that the abolition 
of the spoils system would not only yield direct 
economical benefits to the country, but would 
exert a favorable influence on the selection and 
tenure of Congressmen (for surely experience 
with the Interstate Commerce Act shows that we 
need trained legislators); that the exercise of the 
one-man power in the wholesale removal of offf- 


42 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

cers on political grounds is repugnant to the 
spirit of the Constitution and highly injurious 
to the public welfare; that to bring about the 
desired reform requires legislation by Congress ; 
and, finally, that if the Republican party desires 
and expects the support of the Independents in 
the next Presidential election it must manifest a 
determined and honest purpose to accomplish a 
thorough reform of the civil service on a basis 
of honor and justice. 

St. Paul, Minn., July, 1887. 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM, AS AN ISSUE IN 
THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. 


BY 

GENERAL C. C. ANDREWS, 
of Minnesota. 

Second Edition. Price 25 cents. 

Certainly does not lack for thought and research. — Tren¬ 
ton Times. 

General C. C. Andrews, of Minnesota, has written a 
very able review of the question of administrative reform 
as an issue in the next Presidential canvass. . . . He is a 
devoted Republican and appeals to his party to take still 
more advanced ground on this question. — Springfield 
Republican. 

He sees that the Republican party may win by deserv¬ 
ing to win, and on no other terms. — Portland Advertiser. 

General Andrews has presented his views in such a 
clear, direct, and forcible way that even those most familiar 
with the question will find his paper well worth reading. 
— Boston Post. 

Must content ourselves with a single extract, which fur¬ 
nishes the best answer to one objection which we have ever 
seen. — Vox Populi, Lowell. 

The people are really waking up to the necessity of a 
genuine, and not a sham, civil service reform, and the Re¬ 
publican party in its coming National Convention cannot 
take too decided ground on this point. — Herald , Steuben¬ 
ville, Ohio. 


44 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


The most satisfactory exposition of the civil service re¬ 
form idea that we remember to have seen. — Evening 
Standard, Troy. 

An argument for the extension of civil service reform. 
The author criticises the conduct of President Cleveland in 
this respect, and complains of his failure to keep the prom¬ 
ises made before his election. — Utica Herald. 

The power and influence of this little work will be felt in 
the next Presidential campaign. — Sauk Rapids (Minn.) 
Sentinel. 

This pamphlet has been very highly commended by the 
Eastern press, and it is fully deserving of such commenda¬ 
tion. — Pioneer Press , St. Paul. 

Will give a reader ideas he will get nowhere else. — Rich¬ 
mond (Ind.) Item. 

Takes strong ground for civil service reform. — Cape 
Ann Advertiser. 

General Andrews’s work is an excellent presentation 
of the facts that have made mugwumps weep, and have 
brought upon Mr. Cleveland the maledictions of honest 
Democrats in Maryland and elsewhere. — Elkhart (Ind.) 
Review. 

Treats this failure of the Cleveland administration at 
considerable length, but in a spirit of fairness which leaves 
no room to doubt that his statements are warranted by the 
facts. — Plainfield (N. J.) Times. 

Deserves perusal. — Republican, Coldwater, Mich. 

Discusses the subject with a lucidity and force that make 
the little work a powerful argument for the good cause. — 
Harper's Weekly. 

Merits the wide attention it has received. — Rockford 
(Ill.) Register. 

Vigorous and in many particulars original. — Baltimore 
News. 

A good thing for citizens generally to read. — The 
American, Waterbury, Conn. 

The whole pamphlet forms one of the most effective argu- 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


45 


ments for civil service reform which we have ever seen. It 
is all the more powerful because the author is not a u mug¬ 
wump,” but frankly and heartily a Republican. It is an 
appeal to the intelligence and good sense of the country, and 
we trust that it may have a wide circulation. — Congregair 
tionalist , Boston. 

Unquestionably concise, pithy, and able. — Boston Daily 
Advertiser. 

He certainly makes it clear that questions connected with 
the reform of the public service are among the most mo¬ 
mentous which can come before the people. — Chicago 
Times. 

It contends for civil service reform in the fullest extent, 
and sets up the statement in the strongest manner on a 
basis of honor and justice. — Somerville (Mass.) Journal. 

General Andrews has studied the whole subject 
thoroughly, and his presentation of it cannot fail to com¬ 
mand respect even from those who do not agree with him. 
Eastern (Portland, Me.) Argus. 

General C. C. Andrews, of Minnesota, one of the lead¬ 
ing Republicans of the Northwest, has written a little pam¬ 
phlet on “ Administrative Reform as an Issue in the Next 
Presidential Canvass,” which ought to be made a Republican 
campaign document. It is so perfectly fair and liberal in 
tone, and yet shows up so clearly the weak spots of the 
present administration, as far as civil service reform is con¬ 
cerned, that it could not fail to convince the average reader. 
Whatever the politicians of either party may say, the ques¬ 
tion of civil service reform is one of the most, if not the 
most, important one before this country to-day. — Newton 
(Mass.) Graphic. 

Will repay careful reading. — News , Galveston, Texas. 

As General Andrews made an extended study of Eu¬ 
ropean ^systems of civil service during his residence abroad 
as United States Minister to Sweden and Norway, he is 
well qualified to write in the broadest and most intelligent 
way on the need of reform in the civil service of his own 


46 


ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 


country. Indeed, he has before now published not a little 
that was helpful and suggestive on this subject. — Evening 
Bulletin , Providence. 

The mugwumps all along the line avow their conviction 
that Cleveland has deceived and laughed at them, and that 
he is n’t a civil service reformer at all, and the general in 
his pamphlet sets forth very graphically the frauds he has 
practised on the mugwumps and on the country. — State 
Journal , Lincoln, Neb. 

A well written treatise upon the question. — Register , 
Eugene City, Oregon. 

The author, General Andrews, has had experience of 
the systems of civil service in Norway and Sweden, con¬ 
cerning which he made a report some years ago to the State 
Department at Washington. Hence his qualifications for 
discussing the matter, which he does intelligently and with 
ability. . . . He draws on European practice largely to 
elucidate the points which he presses upon the Republicans 
as necessary to their making a good fight before the country 
and getting a respectable proportion of the independent 
vote. — Brooklyn Eagle. 

He makes one point which is as true as it is important, 
that under the civil service law “ thousands of youth all over 
the country find an inducement for study which did not 
before exist.” It is well that the youth of the country 
should recognize the need of capability as an element in 
securing office, however small or great. — Providence Jout*~ 
nal. 

“ Administrative Reform, as an issue in the next Presi¬ 
dential Canvass,” by General C. C. Andrews, of Minne¬ 
sota, is the title of a vigorous pamphlet in which civil service 
reform is commended, as an important issue in the election 
of 1888, to the consideration of Republicans. We move an 
extension of the appeal to all good citizens, whether of one 
party or the other. A non-partisan civil service is the great 
desideratum of our government. — Watchman , Boston. 




















library of congress 













